Andrew Melder

With the recent uptick in interest for Instagram alternative Pixelfed after Meta blocked links to its competitor (which, of course, gave it more attention); there’s been a re-occurrence of the same feedback experienced by Mastodon when interested users are looking to sign up: why do I need to pick a server and which one do I choose?

Overzealous members of the Fediverse tend to dismiss these concerns as a user problem. How could they be so confused about choosing an instance? It works just like email or choosing your ISP, why do they find this part of the Fediverse so hard? People are used to being spoon fed and just need to do a little bit of reading to understand how it works etc.

All of these arguments are (and I’m outlining this on purpose) ignorant and elitist.

However, the points raised are also flawed in a few key ways that they either don’t address or realise.

Why it is not like email

With email being the common analogy used, let’s dive into that a little.

Back when the general public started getting online and getting email accounts, the analogy to real life was pretty seamless. Your email address was a digital equivalent to your postal address; an identifier to allow people to send you email, in the same way that a postal address is an identifier allowing people to send you physical mail.

At a high level, I can see how the argument that Fediverse services work in the same way appeals as an analogy. You sign up for a Fediverse address and people across the Fediverse can (ignoring the moderation policies of instances that may block your particular server) connect and converse with you.

However, there are two gaps in this analogy that fundamentally impacts the experience for users getting into the Fediverse.

1. The on-boarding experience problem

Take the experience of getting an email account vs getting onto the Fediverse; in this case using Gmail and Pixelfed as examples.

Gmail

1. User wants an email address, finds out about Gmail and downloads the app
2. User opens Gmail, goes through the process to set a username and password
3. User starts using email

Pixelfed

1. User wants an Instagram alternative, finds out about Pixelfed and downloads the app
2. User opens Pixelfed, goes to setup an account but is immediately prompted with a list of servers/instances to choose from
3. User is unclear why or what the purpose of each is, they just wanted to setup a username and password and start using Pixelfed
4. User may select a server at random (or just the first one on the list) and register, or they might close and delete the app

In short, a user isn’t going to Gmail and then signing up for an Outlook email account because there is no choice. The experience matches what users are used to and experience with other centralised social platforms: download, sign up and use.

This increased friction is often dismissed by more technically minded Fediverse folk as ‘regular people not being smart enough/not caring why Federation is better’.

My fundamental belief is that the end user does not have to care about the technical, privacy or other benefits (perceived or otherwise) of a service when there is friction to the experience; especially when equivalent other services already exist that don’t present this friction.

It’s the responsibility of the service to prove its value to the user if there are additional steps to use the service, not the other way around.

2. The social identity problem

The other gap to the email analogy that I feel has been missed is the deeper connection and representation of the individual with their social media user handles.

An email address has a layer of abstraction between you as an individual and what you may or may not represent. Much like your postal address, it is simply a reference on the web to send and receive mail. It’s often been the ISP you are using or an email service someone recommends, and therefore hasn’t (completely) had any connection to you as a person.

Social media handles have been slightly different in general. As most centralised services just have your username as a handle without a reference to the service at all (you don’t give your Facebook handle as @andewmelder@facebook.com as an example), along with the more personal nature of social media posts to your beliefs compared to email; means your social media handle is more aligned to you as an individual.

Fediverse handles call out the server/instance specifically. As many servers on the Fediverse represent specific interests, the choice of which becomes part of your social identity; and therefore creates uncertainty and confusion around how to represent yourself.

Taking myself as an example. I have an interest in technology, so maybe naturally I would be interested in signing up on a technology themed instance. However, that only represents a small part of me as a person; and maybe I don’t want my online identity to be pigeonholed into one stereotype. Same applies for photography or other interest someone may have.

Ok fine, so what about one of the generic instances. Cool, but how does someone who is just wanting to get on the Fediverse choose which generic instance to sign up on?

This goes beyond social identity and back to the first gap of increased friction.

If I can take a quote from The Matrix: The problem is choice.

What’s the solution?

I don’t have one.

I apologise if you read this far expecting an answer to this question, but if it were easy enough for a random blogger to point out someone would have implemented it already. We haven’t even addressed other issues such as differing moderation standards between servers fundamentally impacting who you can connect with; or issues with servers shutting down and users being forced to move instances, a process which is not user friendly at all.

However, I do have two thoughts that may help ease the transition for new users trying to get involved in Fediverse services.

1. The user blame culture on the Fediverse needs to go away

This is the more difficult suggestion because it is not a technical solution but requires a culture change. However it has been proven time and time again that the Fediverse is not welcoming to those who question its barriers or just ask questions trying to understand how it all works.

If I can be brutally honest; those unwilling to have an understanding for user issues and adopt a position to help and assist, instead of condemn and demean, need to either stay quiet or fuck off.

2. Official apps need to automatically select a default server during on-boarding, with the option to edit if desired

Pixelfed’s current problem is its unwillingness to default to pixelfed.social when a user first loads the app. Mastodon eventually updated their official app to default to mastodon.social, much to the dismay of the Fediverse zealots.

Unfortunately the perception of server/instance confusion was already set with the general public before they made this change; and first impressions are hard to break. I fear Pixelfed may have already missed their chance to improve the first impression too.

The other issue with defaults is that it naturally leads for centralisation of users within a few selected instances. This not only goes against what the Fediverse is meant to represent but also leads to drastically increased costs for server owners; many of whom are relying on donations and other income sources to cover the increasing costs.

Again, I don’t know what the solution is. What I do know is that the answer certainly isn’t users needing to be better informed on the nuances of the Fediverse.